Identifying "the Rock" of Matthew 16:18

[Paul_Saltzman]

The answer to the question of who or what Jesus was referring to as “this rock” upon which Jesus said He would build his Church in Matthew 16:18 tends to differ between Roman Catholics and Protestants. Even the early Church Fathers expressed several different views, i.e., 1) that the rock was Jesus, 2) the rock was Peter, or 3) the rock was Peter’s confession of faith that “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God”.

Could it be that all three views are true? It would seem to me that we cannot separate Peter from his confession that Jesus is the Christ insofar as the thing said and the person saying it go together. For example, Ephesians 2:19-20 does not say that the Church is built exclusively on what the Apostles said and not upon the Apostles themselves, and this is because the thing that is said cannot be separated from the person who said it. If so, both Peter and his confession of faith can be spoken of as the same rock upon which the church is built. This view can be supported by Matthew 16:16-18, John 1:42, Acts 15:7, 1 Corinthians 12:28, Ephesians 2:20, Revelation 21:14, and Matthew 10:2.

Of course, the Church is founded upon Christ, as St. Paul wrote:

1 Corinthians 3:11
“For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”

Paul refers to Jesus as the sole foundation of the Church in 1 Corinthians 3:11, but in his epistle to the Ephesians, he also refers to “the apostles and prophets” as comprising “the foundation”, with Jesus Christ being “the Chief Cornerstone” (cf. 1 Peter 2:4-6):

Ephesians 2:20
Having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone,"

Also, Revelation 21:14 says that the New Jerusalem has twelve foundations, one foundation for each of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus Christ. God appointed the Apostles to be first in the Church (1 Corinthians 12:28), and since Peter was the foremost Apostle among the Twelve Apostles, it is reasonable to say that the first of the twelve apostolic foundations upon which the Church is built is Peter.

All of the apostles are foundational (Ephesians 2:20), and Peter is first among the Twelve Apostles (Matthew 10:2); therefore, Peter is the first layer of foundation after Christ. Again, Christ is first, and then the remainder of the Church is established on the Apostles with Peter being first among the Apostles. Therefore, it is fair for us to agree with the statement of Jesus in Matthew 16:18, “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church”.

In Scripture, Jesus is called the foundation (1 Corinthians 3:11), the stone (Matthew 21:42, 1 Pet 2:4), the builder (Matthew 16:18), the chief cornerstone (Acts 4:11), and the temple (John 2:19-21, Revelation 21:22).

Interestingly, we also see most of these same terms applied to the apostles and/or believers; for example, foundation (Ephesians 2:19-20; Rev 21:14), builders (1 Cor 3:10), stones (John 1:42, 1 Peter 2:5), God’s building (1 Cor 3:9), and God’s temple (1 Cor 3:16, 2 Cor 6:16, Eph 2:21). In 1 Timothy 3:15 the Church is called “the pillar and ground of the truth” (cf. Luke 10:16 and Matthew 18:17).

Jesus changed Simon’s name to “Cephas”, aka “Peter”, when they first met (John 1:42), not later on when Peter made his confession of faith that Jesus was the Christ in Matthew 16:16-18. (“Cephas” is the Aramaic equivalent to “Petros” in Greek, from which we get “Peter” in English).

According to Peter, all Christians are likened to “living stones” or “rocks” in scripture along with Christ, Who is the Chief Cornerstone (1 Peter 2:4-5). Jesus is referred to not only as a “rock” (1 Corinthians 10:4) or “stone” (1 Peter 2:4), but also as the “foundation” (1 Corinthians 3:11) and “chief cornerstone” (1 Peter 2:6-7) of the spiritual temple that is the Church (Ephesians 2:20-21).

It is interesting to note that just as Jesus predicted the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem in Matthew 24:2 (“not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down”), that process is reversed in us (1 Cor 3:9, 16) who are living stones being built up into a spiritual temple, having been called to be members of his Church (1 Peter 2:5, Eph 2:20-21).

 

[Abu]

Paul Saltzman #1
Even the early Church Fathers expressed several different views, i.e., 1) that the rock was Jesus, 2) the rock was Peter, or 3) the rock was Peter’s confession of faith that “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God”.

“Views” do not equate with Christ’s teaching through His Church.

Peter is the Rock on which Jesus built His Church.

On St Peter, scholarly commentary identifies that Cephas is merely the transliteration of the Aramaic ‘Kepha’ into Greek. *Catholicism And Fundamentalism, Karl Keating, 1988, Ignatius, p 207]. *

“Transliteration” means to represent words in the characters of another alphabet. Convert David B Currie puts it this way: “[Kepha] transliterated into English, can be written ‘Cephas’.” Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic, 1996, Ignatius, p 76]. Since “Kepha” is the only Aramaic word for rock, Currie points out that Jesus said: “I tell you that you are Rock (Kepha) and on this Rock (Kepha) I will build my Church.”

“Sur” was the chief biblical word for rock, and the Psalms emphasised that God was the only Rock (sur). “Being closely synonymous with “sur”, the name Kepha could not help but evoke in pious Jews, as all the twelve were, a sentiment of awe and reverence.” And On This Rock, Fr Stanley L Jaki, OSB, 1987, Trinity Communications, p 77].

The Swiss Calvinist biblical scholar, Oscar Cullman, declared …”the Roman Catholic exegesis must be regarded as correct.” (See Peter, Apostle, Disciple, Martyr, 1953, p 18-20).

Paul calls Peter “Cephas” quite often.
[Keating, p 208-11].

1 Corinthians 1:12: What I mean is that each one of you says, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.”

1 Corinthians 3:22: whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future, all are yours;

1 Corinthians 9:5 Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

1 Corinthians 15:5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

Galatians 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days.

Galatians 2:9 and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Yes, it is possible to understand the “rock” in multiple ways. The Catechism has both Peter and his confession as the “rock.” And other magisterial docs repeat Scripture’s wording that Christ is the rock.

*#424 Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.

#552 Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve; Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him. Through a revelation from the Father, Peter had confessed: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Our Lord then declared to him: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.” Christ, the “living Stone”, thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakable rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it.

#881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the “rock” of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock. “The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head.” This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.*And Pope Paul VI, quoting the Church Father Pope Leo I, writes:Saint Peter does not cease to preside over his See, and preserves an endless sharing with the Sovereign Priest. The firmness that he received from the Rock which is Christ, he himself, having become the Rock, transmits it equally to his successors too. (Paul VI, Gaudete in Domino, 1975)

 

[Paul_Saltzman]

Thanks for that information, Marco, it makes this subject crystal clear! Notice that the quote from Pope Paul VI refers to both Jesus and Peter as “the Rock”.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Matthew 16:18 – Peter the Rock
Understanding the Use of Metaphor in the New Testament

Matthew 16:18-20 (NIV)
18And I tell you that you are Peter,a] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

a] Peter means rock.

Many non-Catholics object to the idea that Peter was the rock upon which Jesus promised to build the Church, and they offer various alternative interpretations of the rock as being Jesus himself, Peter’s confession of faith, and the curious hybrid Peter and his confession. To support their denial of Jesus’ establishment of Peter as the head of the Church, non-Catholics frequently cite other scripture passages in which Jesus is called the “chief cornerstone” and the apostles collectively being described as foundation stones. These arguments are based upon a misunderstanding of the use of metaphors within the pages of scripture. Author Stephen Ray, himself a former Evangelical and convert to Catholicism, addressed this problem in his book, Upon This Rock:

“In this metaphorical description, Jesus himself could not be the foundation, because in this illustration he presents himself as the builder. The following is very important. In Scripture Jesus is variously depicted as the foundation (1 Cor. 3:11), the builder (Mt. 16:18), the cornerstone (Acts 4:11), and the temple itself (Rev. 21:22). We also see the apostles and/or believers as the foundation (Eph. 2:20, Rev. 21:14), the builders (1 Cor. 3:10), the stones, lithos, not petra (1 Pet. 2:5), the building (1 Cor. 3:9), and the temple (Eph. 2:21). Many illustrations are used to explain various aspects of the Church. One cannot simply substitute one descriptive figure of speech for another in any one illustration thereby mixing metaphors. It does great violence to the textual illustration itself and is a good example of roughshod “proof-texting”, wrongly “dividing the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15). The Bible does not set up a dichotomy—either Jesus or Peter; rather, it presents us with both Jesus and Peter as foundation stones. Jesus is establishing the man who will be the focal point of unity within the Church, the foundation. He who builds upon sand has a structure that crumbles (Mt. 7:24-27). Jesus builds his Church upon the rock of his choice, and, by his protection, the Church has stood the test of time. The powers of hell have failed to destroy or corrupt her” (Stephen Ray, Upon this Rock, [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999], 36.)

In this same book, Ray also cites Protestant George Salmon, author of The Infallibility of the Church which he wrote to undermine the teachings of the Catholic Church. On the matter of metaphorical usage, Salmon wrote at length:

“It is undoubtedly the doctrine of Scripture that Christ is the only foundation [of the Church]: “other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3:11). Yet we must remember that the same metaphor may be used to illustrate different truths, and so, according to circumstances, may have different significations. The same Paul who has called Christ the only foundation, tells his Ephesian converts (2:20):—“Ye are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone.” And in like manner we read (Rev. 21:14):—“The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb.” How is it that there can be no other foundation but Christ, and yet that the Apostles are spoken of as foundations? Plainly, because the metaphor is used with different applications. Christ alone is that foundation, from being joined to which the whole building of the Church derives its unity and stability, and gains strength to defy all the assaults of hell. But, in the same manner as any human institution is said to be founded by those men to whom it owes its origin, so we may call those men the foundation of the Church whom God honoured by using them as His instruments in the establishment of it; who were themselves laid as the first living stones in that holy temple, and on whom the other stones of that temple were laid; for it was on their testimony that others received the truth, so that our faith rests on theirs; and (humanly speaking) it is because they believed that we believe. So, again, in like manner, we are forbidden to call anyone on earth our Father, “for one is our Father which is in heaven.” And yet, in another sense, Paul did not scruple to call himself the spiritual father of those whom he had begotten in the Gospel. You see, then, that the fact that Christ is called the rock, and that on Him the Church is built, is no hindrance to Peter’s also being, in a different sense, called rock, and being said to be the foundation of the Church; so that I consider there is no ground for the fear entertained by some, in ancient and in modern times, that, by applying the words personally to Peter, we should infringe on the honour due to Christ alone.” (George Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church [London: John Murray, 1914], 338-339).

 

[animalis]

If you get the time do a study on www.bibliaclerus.org. You will find that a big number of Magisterial references of this verse are used to explain the primacy of the Pope. Or you can take my word for it.

 

[Chafer_DTS]

The answer to the question of who or what Jesus was referring to as “this rock” upon which Jesus said He would build his Church in Matthew 16:18 tends to differ between Roman Catholics and Protestants. Even the early Church Fathers expressed several different views, i.e., 1) that the rock was Jesus, 2) the rock was Peter, or 3) the rock was Peter’s confession of faith that “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God”.

Roman Catholicism would also disagree with Eastern Orthodox and Old Catholics on this issue too. Protestants hold that the " Rock " as refering either to Peter’s confession of faith or that Jesus Himself is the " Rock " generally speaking. Over 44 church fathers held to this view too. Thus it was the majority view point historically speaking. The basic issue is over Vatican I on this issue. Protestants, Eastern Orthodox and Old Catholics stand in contrast againist Roman Catholicism .

 

[Chafer_DTS]

Peter/rock is a play on the word for " rock " in both Aramaic and Greek ( petroslpetra ) . This rock refers not to Peter per se, but to " the faith of His confession " ( JohnChr ) . The true Rock is Christ Himself ( 1 Cor. 10:4 ) , and the Church is built on the faithful confession of Christ. ( The Orthodox Study Bible, pg. 1299, note on Matt. 16:18 )

 

[jcrichton]

The answer to the question of who or what Jesus was referring to as “this rock” upon which Jesus said He would build his Church in Matthew 16:18 tends to differ between Roman Catholics and Protestants. Even the early Church Fathers expressed several different views, i.e., 1) that the rock was Jesus, 2) the rock was Peter, or 3) the rock was Peter’s confession of faith that “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God”.

Could it be that all three views are true? It would seem to me that we cannot separate Peter from his confession that Jesus is the Christ insofar as the thing said and the person saying it go together. For example, Ephesians 2:19-20 does not say that the Church is built exclusively on what the Apostles said and not upon the Apostles themselves, and this is because the thing that is said cannot be separated from the person who said it. If so, both Peter and his confession of faith can be spoken of as the same rock upon which the church is built. This view can be supported by Matthew 16:16-18, John 1:42, Acts 15:7, 1 Corinthians 12:28, Ephesians 2:20, Revelation 21:14, and Matthew 10:2.

Of course, the Church is founded upon Christ, as St. Paul wrote:

1 Corinthians 3:11
“For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”

Paul refers to Jesus as the sole foundation of the Church in 1 Corinthians 3:11, but in his epistle to the Ephesians, he also refers to “the apostles and prophets” as comprising “the foundation”, with Jesus Christ being “the Chief Cornerstone” (cf. 1 Peter 2:4-6):

Ephesians 2:20
Having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone,"

Also, Revelation 21:14 says that the New Jerusalem has twelve foundations, one foundation for each of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus Christ. God appointed the Apostles to be first in the Church (1 Corinthians 12:28), and since Peter was the foremost Apostle among the Twelve Apostles, it is reasonable to say that the first of the twelve apostolic foundations upon which the Church is built is Peter.

All of the apostles are foundational (Ephesians 2:20), and Peter is first among the Twelve Apostles (Matthew 10:2); therefore, Peter is the first layer of foundation after Christ. Again, Christ is first, and then the remainder of the Church is established on the Apostles with Peter being first among the Apostles. Therefore, it is fair for us to agree with the statement of Jesus in Matthew 16:18, “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church”.

In Scripture, Jesus is called the foundation (1 Corinthians 3:11), the stone (Matthew 21:42, 1 Pet 2:4), the builder (Matthew 16:18), the chief cornerstone (Acts 4:11), and the temple (John 2:19-21, Revelation 21:22).

Interestingly, we also see most of these same terms applied to the apostles and/or believers; for example, foundation (Ephesians 2:19-20; Rev 21:14), builders (1 Cor 3:10), stones (John 1:42, 1 Peter 2:5), God’s building (1 Cor 3:9), and God’s temple (1 Cor 3:16, 2 Cor 6:16, Eph 2:21). In 1 Timothy 3:15 the Church is called “the pillar and ground of the truth” (cf. Luke 10:16 and Matthew 18:17).

Jesus changed Simon’s name to “Cephas”, aka “Peter”, when they first met (John 1:42), not later on when Peter made his confession of faith that Jesus was the Christ in Matthew 16:16-18. (“Cephas” is the Aramaic equivalent to “Petros” in Greek, from which we get “Peter” in English).

According to Peter, all Christians are likened to “living stones” or “rocks” in scripture along with Christ, Who is the Chief Cornerstone (1 Peter 2:4-5). Jesus is referred to not only as a “rock” (1 Corinthians 10:4) or “stone” (1 Peter 2:4), but also as the “foundation” (1 Corinthians 3:11) and “chief cornerstone” (1 Peter 2:6-7) of the spiritual temple that is the Church (Ephesians 2:20-21).

It is interesting to note that just as Jesus predicted the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem in Matthew 24:2 (“not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down”), that process is reversed in us (1 Cor 3:9, 16) who are living stones being built up into a spiritual temple, having been called to be members of his Church (1 Peter 2:5, Eph 2:20-21).

…I’m quite pedestrian… so please suffer me just a little… so why would Jesus change Simon’s name and then tell him… by the way, Cephas/Kephas/Peter, I am the Rock on which I will build my Church… so there!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Roman Catholicism would also disagree with Eastern Orthodox and Old Catholics on this issue too. Protestants hold that the " Rock " as refering either to Peter’s confession of faith or that Jesus Himself is the " Rock " generally speaking. Over 44 church fathers held to this view too. Thus it was the majority view point historically speaking. The basic issue is over Vatican I on this issue. Protestants, Eastern Orthodox and Old Catholics stand in contrast againist Roman Catholicism .

Interesting… you have just ascertained that only Roman Catholicism applies Jesus’ Word to the Word of God!

Thanks! :bowdown2::bowdown2::bowdown2: :extrahappy::extrahappy::extrahappy:

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Peter/rock is a play on the word for " rock " in both Aramaic and Greek ( petroslpetra ) . This rock refers not to Peter per se, but to " the faith of His confession " ( JohnChr ) . The true Rock is Christ Himself ( 1 Cor. 10:4 ) , and the Church is built on the faithful confession of Christ. ( The Orthodox Study Bible, pg. 1299, note on Matt. 16:18 )

…let’s see… Jesus tells Simon that He is the Rock on which He will build His Church… and that He will give Himself the Keys to the Kingdom… did Jesus drink some strange juice or is it more likely that man is engaged in some fantastic cirque-du-soleil-meets-chinese-acrobats contortionism? :banghead::banghead::banghead:

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[LionHeart777]

Roman Catholicism would also disagree with Eastern Orthodox and Old Catholics on this issue too. Protestants hold that the " Rock " as refering either to Peter’s confession of faith or that Jesus Himself is the " Rock " generally speaking. Over 44 church fathers held to this view too. Thus it was the majority view point historically speaking. The basic issue is over Vatican I on this issue. Protestants, Eastern Orthodox and Old Catholics stand in contrast againist Roman Catholicism .

Of the 44 mentioned (if this tally is correct), how many:

a) separated St. Peter from his confession?

b) repudiated the interpretation that St. Peter is the Rock?

Also, if I’m not mistaken, the Catholic Church doesn’t repudiate the interpretation that the “Rock” can refer to St. Peter’s faith (as a non-literal interpretation–sort of a secondary way perhaps by allusion) so long as one doesn’t deny the interpretation that St. Peter is the “Rock” in the literal sense and the way that the text must be interpreted and in the primary sense (someone correct me if I’m wrong) For Catholics, it is more of a question of both/and rather than either/or.

If you are judging strictly by numbers, respectfully then, I assume that you interpret St. John 3:5 to teach Baptismal Regeneration since *all * of the Fathers who spoke on that passage interpreted it in that way?

 

[Chafer_DTS]

…let’s see… Jesus tells Simon that He is the Rock on which He will build His Church… and that He will give Himself the Keys to the Kingdom… did Jesus drink some strange juice or is it more likely that man is engaged in some fantastic cirque-du-soleil-meets-chinese-acrobats contortionism? :banghead::banghead::banghead:

Maran atha!

Angel

I take it you disagree with Eastern Orthodox on that ? Eastern Orthodox does predate Roman Catholicism historically speaking. Eastern Orthodox on that have 44 church fathers for their position. Guess apostolic tradition is not being followed by Roman Catholicism but rather Eastern Orthodox , Old Catholics and Protestants.

 

[SwissGuard25]

I take it you disagree with Eastern Orthodox on that ? Eastern Orthodox does predate Roman Catholicism historically speaking. Eastern Orthodox on that have 44 church fathers for their position. Guess apostolic tradition is not being followed by Roman Catholicism but rather Eastern Orthodox , Old Catholics and Protestants.

There were another signs of Peter’s authority:

There is ample evidence in the New Testament that Peter was first in authority among the apostles. Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13); sometimes the apostles were referred to as “Peter and those who were with him” (Luke 9:32). Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69), and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, Matt. 17:24-27, Mark 10:23-28). On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7). It is Peter’s faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and Peter is given Christ’s flock to shepherd (John 21:17). An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7), and the risen Christ first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34). He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41). He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23). He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11). It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48).

catholic.com/tracts/peter-and-the-papacy

Apostolic Tradition has remains in the Catholic Church to this day. From the way be celebrate mass to the way prayer. From our Written Tradition to are Oral Tradition. Same goes for ways of worship

 

[LionHeart777]

Yes, it is possible to understand the “rock” in multiple ways. The Catechism has both Peter and his confession as the “rock.” And other magisterial docs repeat Scripture’s wording that Christ is the rock.

#424 Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.

#552 Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve; Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him. Through a revelation from the Father, Peter had confessed: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Our Lord then declared to him: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.” Christ, the “living Stone”, thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakable rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it.

#881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the “rock” of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock. “The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head.” This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.And Pope Paul VI, quoting the Church Father Pope Leo I, writes:Saint Peter does not cease to preside over his See, and preserves an endless sharing with the Sovereign Priest. The firmness that he received from the Rock which is Christ, he himself, having become the Rock, transmits it equally to his successors too. (Paul VI, Gaudete in Domino, 1975)

Didn’t see that, this helps, thanks!

 

[LionHeart777]

I take it you disagree with Eastern Orthodox on that ? Eastern Orthodox does predate Roman Catholicism historically speaking. Eastern Orthodox on that have 44 church fathers for their position. Guess apostolic tradition is not being followed by Roman Catholicism but rather Eastern Orthodox , Old Catholics and Protestants.

Eastern Orthodox predating the Catholic Church? No, we were all united in the beginning, we just disagree on who is in schism. Not even the Eastern Orthodox would say “Eastern Orthodox does predate Roman Catholicism historically speaking…”

regarding the #'s see my previous post and that of Marco Polo’s.

Also, again:

If you are judging strictly by numbers, respectfully then, I assume that you interpret St. John 3:5 to teach Baptismal Regeneration since all of the Fathers who spoke on that passage interpreted it in that way?

 

[Chafer_DTS]

Of the 44 mentioned (if this tally is correct), how many:

a) separated St. Peter from his confession?

They simply affirmed in their expositions that the rock was Peter’s confession of faith. The main point is they did not have the same interpretation of Matthew 16:18 as Vatican I in 187ad has on it. Vatican I was a departure from the general position of the church fathers.

b) repudiated the interpretation that St. Peter is the Rock?

None of them held to it in the same sense as Vatican I. That is the issue here. In this Eastern Orthodox, Old Catholics and Protestants are right. There were about 6 to 8 church fathers who did hold that Peter was the Rock but not in the same sense as Vatican I held to. Their understanding was different of it. Over 44 chuch fathers I said held that the Rock was either Peter’s confession of faith or that it was Christ Himself as the Rock. That is in contradication to Vatican I’s view of Matthew 16:18. One intresting thing is that I notice was one church father at various different times held to different interpretations of it.

Also, if I’m not mistaken, the Catholic Church doesn’t repudiate the interpretation that the “Rock” can refer to St. Peter’s faith (as a non-literal interpretation–sort of a secondary way perhaps by allusion) so long as one doesn’t deny the interpretation that St. Peter is the “Rock” in the literal sense and the way that the text must be interpreted and in the primary sense (someone correct me if I’m wrong) For Catholics, it is more of a question of both/and rather than either/or.

The issue is with respect to the Roman See which is only one branch of the Catholic Church. As the Catholic Church is never limited to only those in communion with the Bishop of Rome. It is Roman Catholicism’s view at Vatican I in which rejected and contradicted the majority interpretation of Matthew 16:18 from that of the church fathers.

If you are judging strictly by numbers, respectfully then, I assume that you interpret St. John 3:5 to teach Baptismal Regeneration since *all * of the Fathers who spoke on that passage interpreted it in that way?

It was Vatican I that claimed to have followed the unanimous consent of the church fathers. That is where I find fault with them on. If they merely said hey this interpretation is what is correct and the other views are wrong that some church fahers held I would have no problem.** But when they claim to follow the unanimous consent of the church fathers they went beyond anything reasonable and departs from historical reality.** That is why Old Catholics separated from Roman Catholicism over Vatican I. As to my own personal view of John 3:5 I do not hold to their view of it as being baptismal regeneration. We have about 5 to 8 before 250ad as teaching that view. I disagree respectfully with them.At times some went to an extreme with it such as teaching those not baptized will end up in hell. Many today would disagree with that. I feel that these church fathers did not defend their specific interpretation of it and merely took for granted their view and not show why it was correct. My issue would be what specific doctrine of baptismal regeneration it would be if refering to if it is ? You see baptismal regeneration within it has variations of that doctrine. If we assume that baptismal regeneration is correct then I would say it is most close to that held by Lutherns and Anglicans rather than Roman Catholicism. Their own doctrine of baptismal regeneration are distinct from that of Roman Catholicism to be fair. A major area of concern is the use of anarchism by people when dealing with the church fathers. The church fathers must be read and understood within their historical context of which they lived and died. No need to turn this to a discussion of baptismal regeneration. When all is said and done it is the matter of Vatican I claiming the unianimous consent of the church fathers which is really very much overstated thing to say. I hope you understand what I am saying and see what I am saying.

 

[Chafer_DTS]

Eastern Orthodox predating the Catholic Church? No, we were all united in the beginning, we just disagree on who is in schism. Not even the Eastern Orthodox would say “Eastern Orthodox does predate Roman Catholicism historically speaking…”

They do claim that. Please read The Orthodox Study Bible. Strictly speaking the church did start in Asia Minor which would be the Eastern Church and not in the Western Church.

regarding the #'s see my previous post and that of Marco Polo’s.

Also, again:

If you are judging strictly by numbers, respectfully then, I assume that you interpret St. John 3:5 to teach Baptismal Regeneration since all of the Fathers who spoke on that passage interpreted it in that way?

The issue is over the claim of Vatican I as having the support of the unianinous consent of the church fathers when that was not the church. I never make a claim like that. Nor should anyone in reality. My view of John 3:5 is irrelevent to the point made. I never claim the unianimous consent of the church fathers while Vatican I did. This is my core issue really. I concede I disagree with some church fathers on John 3:5 but I never claim unianimous consent of the church fathers . This is what Vatican I did on the other hand. I am sure you and I would disagree with a such and such church father as teaching Jesus died at 56 years old and quote John 8 as his proof text. Well a certain church father did this and yet is wrong and we both would disagree with him on that.

 

[LionHeart777]

They simply affirmed in their expositions that the rock was Peter’s confession of faith. The main point is they did not have the same interpretation of Matthew 16:18 as Vatican I in 187ad has on it. Vatican I was a departure from the general position of the church fathers.

None of them held to it in the same sense as Vatican I. That is the issue here. In this Eastern Orthodox, Old Catholics and Protestants are right. There were about 6 to 8 church fathers who did hold that Peter was the Rock but not in the same sense as Vatican I held to. Their understanding was different of it. Over 44 chuch fathers I said held that the Rock was either Peter’s confession of faith or that it was Christ Himself as the Rock. That is in contradication to Vatican I’s view of Matthew 16:18. One intresting thing is that I notice was one church father at various different times held to different interpretations of it.

The issue is with respect to the Roman See which is only one branch of the Catholic Church. As the Catholic Church is never limited to only those in communion with the Bishop of Rome. It is Roman Catholicism’s view at Vatican I in which rejected and contradicted the majority interpretation of Matthew 16:18 from that of the church fathers.

It was Vatican I that claimed to have followed the unanimous consent of the church fathers. That is where I find fault with them on. If they merely said hey this interpretation is what is correct and the other views are wrong that some church fahers held I would have no problem.** But when they claim to follow the unanimous consent of the church fathers they went beyond anything reasonable and departs from historical reality.** That is why Old Catholics separated from Roman Catholicism over Vatican I. As to my own personal view of John 3:5 I do not hold to their view of it as being baptismal regeneration. We have about 5 to 8 before 250ad as teaching that view. I disagree respectfully with them.At times some went to an extreme with it such as teaching those not baptized will end up in hell. Many today would disagree with that. I feel that these church fathers did not defend their specific interpretation of it and merely took for granted their view and not show why it was correct. My issue would be what specific doctrine of baptismal regeneration it would be if refering to if it is ? You see baptismal regeneration within it has variations of that doctrine. If we assume that baptismal regeneration is correct then I would say it is most close to that held by Lutherns and Anglicans rather than Roman Catholicism. Their own doctrine of baptismal regeneration are distinct from that of Roman Catholicism to be fair. A major area of concern is the use of anarchism by people when dealing with the church fathers. The church fathers must be read and understood within their historical context of which they lived and died. No need to turn this to a discussion of baptismal regeneration. When all is said and done it is the matter of Vatican I claiming the unianimous consent of the church fathers which is really very much overstated thing to say. I hope you understand what I am saying and see what I am saying.

regarding your first point, it doesn’t address my original point:

"Of the 44 mentioned (if this tally is correct), how many:

a) separated St. Peter from his confession?

b) repudiated the interpretation that St. Peter is the Rock?"

You have to take into account the different contexts in which the Father’s were speaking and the fact that, the Catholic Church even understands that verse that way today (in a sense.) again both/and. There is an example I am thinking about, if I’m not mistaken, about one who interpreted the passage that way for the specific purpose of arguing against heretics to make a specific point. The Catechism even interprets it that way to make a specific point (as Marco Polo pointed out) and yet one would be incorrect down the road (or even now) to use that as a repudiation of the understanding as St. Peter as the Rock in STt. Matthew 16:18.

What do you mean in the same sense as Vatican I? My feeling here is that you may be looking at things anachronistically and not allowing for legitimate development of Doctrine.

You said:

"Over 44 chuch fathers I said held that the Rock was either Peter’s confession of faith or that it was Christ Himself as the Rock. That is in contradication to Vatican I’s view of Matthew 16:18. "

No, it does not, as both can be true as Marco Polo pointed out (again both/and)

The unanimous consent of the Father’s is not reduced to mathematics; this is a common misconception.

My point on asking about Baptismal Regeneration is that if what the Father’s taught really influenced your Theology, than you would hold to Baptismal Regeneration as every one of them taught it on St. John 3:5. But you are using this tally of 44 as some authority and really you do not hold to your own standard as it seems to me.

 

[adrift]

They simply affirmed in their expositions that the rock was Peter’s confession of faith. The main point is they did not have the same interpretation of Matthew 16:18 as Vatican I in 187ad has on it. Vatican I was a departure from the general position of the church fathers.

I need more than just your statement that it was a departure of Church Fathers. These 44 you mention please Identfy them.

None of them held to it in the same sense as Vatican I. That is the issue here.

This is your claim. I need more than just you typing it out.

In this Eastern Orthodox, Old Catholics and Protestants are right. There were about 6 to 8 church fathers who did hold that Peter was the Rock but not in the same sense as Vatican I held to.

Again proof?

Their understanding was different of it. Over 44 chuch fathers I said held that the Rock was either Peter’s confession of faith or that it was Christ Himself as the Rock.

Again what Fathers?

The issue is with respect to the Roman See which is only one branch of the Catholic Church. As the Catholic Church is never limited to only those in communion with the Bishop of Rome. It is Roman Catholicism’s view at Vatican I in which rejected and contradicted the majority interpretation of Matthew 16:18 from that of the church fathers.

Proof?

It was Vatican I that claimed to have followed the unanimous consent of the church fathers. That is where I find fault with them on. If they merely said hey this interpretation is what is correct and the other views are wrong that some church fahers held I would have no problem.** But when they claim to follow the unanimous consent of the church fathers they went beyond anything reasonable and departs from historical reality.** That is why Old Catholics separated from Roman Catholicism over Vatican I.

So far you have offered only your opinion.

As to my own personal view of John 3:5 I do not hold to their view of it as being baptismal regeneration.

Their view? Church Fathers?

We have about 5 to 8 before 250ad as teaching that view.

Proof?

I disagree respectfully with them.At times some went to an extreme with it such as teaching those not baptized will end up in hell. Many today would disagree with that. I feel that these church fathers did not defend their specific interpretation of it and merely took for granted their view and not show why it was correct.

Who are these Church Fathers?

My issue would be what specific doctrine of baptismal regeneration it would be if refering to if it is ? You see baptismal regeneration within it has variations of that doctrine. If we assume that baptismal regeneration is correct then I would say it is most close to that held by Lutherns and Anglicans rather than Roman Catholicism. Their own doctrine of baptismal regeneration are distinct from that of Roman Catholicism to be fair. A major area of concern is the use of anarchism by people when dealing with the church fathers. The church fathers must be read and understood within their historical context of which they lived and died. No need to turn this to a discussion of baptismal regeneration. When all is said and done it is the matter of Vatican I claiming the unianimous consent of the church fathers which is really very much overstated thing to say. I hope you understand what I am saying and see what I am saying.

This is all off topic.